Little is more vital than culture wars over schools

Share this article

THE so-called progressive side of politics (otherwise known as Bob Carr's Greens-Left-Fairfax-ABC umbrella grouping) often decries the culture wars. Yet as we see in reaction to the review of the national curriculum, what they really mean is that in cultural matters there should be no dissent from their painfully correct views on cultural matters. These proponents show a lack of confidence in the power of their ideas because instead of defending their ideological positions they resort to ad hominem attacks.

The Abbott government's review of the Australian curriculum is not only warranted but necessary. Christopher Pyne promised such a review for more than three years from opposition and now, as Education Minister, is bound to deliver. With the curriculum being rolled out state by state, subject by subject, it is clear the process warrants constant review and adjustment. The Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority has welcomed the independent process because it "could provide a helpful, additional perspective" on the curriculum. Former senior education bureaucrat and chair of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Literacy and Numeracy, Ken Boston, agrees the national education initiative is "not yet perfect" and says he is not against "continued monitoring and review". Yet Dr Boston, and others, seem to take great exception to the review being conducted by someone outside the clique that constructed it.

Kevin Donnelly, a regular contributor to The Australian, has been a long-time agitator against the education zeitgeist, preferring to promote tried and tested approaches to education with a pragmatic focus on discipline, results and traditional subjects. He has written and spoken extensively about the "edubabble" of so-called outcomes-based education that "defines what students should learn in terms of hundreds of vague and generalised outcome statements and embodies a cultural-Left, politically correct focus in areas like multiculturalism, the environment, indigenous studies, gender and the class nature of society". Since his appointment to the review, along with Ken Wiltshire, Dr Donnelly has been viciously denounced on Twitter and elsewhere as anti-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-tobacco, old-fashioned and politically tainted because of his time as an adviser to the Howard government. Declaring that "we need to talk about Kevin", Dr Boston derided him as a polemicist who is not taken seriously. "His views, or rantings frankly, are well-known and have been disregarded for many years," he told the ABC. "His trademark is attacks on anyone who disagrees with him as being a member of the cultural Left and that includes the leaders of education ... teachers, the Fairfax press and most recently the ABC." Well, they both might be on to something there. To the extent there is a conflict between the Left and Right, or progressives and conservatives, or liberal-humanists and social engineers in education, it can't be a bad thing that we hear from all of them. The same bureaucrats and academics who set themselves against Dr Donnelly have held sway for much of a period in which school spending by state and federal governments doubled from $20 billion in 1995 to about $40bn now, while standards either plateaued or slipped. With a record like that, they should not be squealing so loudly about two experienced and highly qualified consultants being given the opportunity to review the system from an alternative perspective.

The Australian has long argued for a focus on traditional subjects, teacher-training and measurable results rather than a pre-occupation with social manipulation, "self-directed learning" and increased funding, for two important reasons: the evidence from other nations demands we adopt the approaches that deliver better results; and we believe this is what most parents expect from public schools. This newspaper has given the national curriculum qualified support because it is an improvement on what some states previously offered but there are still legitimate concerns. The new minister has every right to revisit the area with a view to placing appropriate emphasis on fact over opinion, classic texts over popular culture, and the building blocks of Western civilisation over cultural relativism.

It was good enough for Labor governments to declare an "education revolution" and throw billions of dollars at school halls while student results went backwards. Yet now Bill Shorten accuses Tony Abbott of appointing "a couple of mates to start playing political games". Despite the Coalition's difficult and ham-fisted decisions to match Labor's promised education funding, the Opposition Leader accuses it of planning to "cut and slash" in our schools. The incessant point-scoring about funding is not the debate we need to hear.

Culture wars might provide a more fruitful discussion if they lead to adjustments that improve results. Changes can't proceed without endorsement from state governments, and parents will be the ultimate judges. In March 2010, when then education minister Julia Gillard launched the national curriculum with then prime minister Kevin Rudd, she said they were making up for years of Coalition inaction and were driven to "make a difference" for every child in every school. "Sometimes that requires us to overcome some opposition," she said. Quite. Mr Pyne and his review are entitled to claim the same motivation and no doubt will need the same mettle.